Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: 'Vince gets more like Victor Meldrew everyday. He is a Brexit denier and he doesn't accept the will of the Britishpeople which was expressed again at the last general election which waswhy the Lib Dems only got 12 seats.'

'The second referendum and anti-Brexit politics of the Lib Dems failedat the recent election. They were rejected by the British people and heneeds to accept that.'

Post by BodHis outburst was immediately condemned – with critics saying SirVince was guilty of 'contempt for ordinary voters'.Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: 'Vince gets more like Victor Meldrew everyday. He is a Brexit denier and he doesn't accept the will of theBritish people which was expressed again at the last general electionwhich was why the Lib Dems only got 12 seats.'

Knowing that voting Liberal could/would be a wasted vote, many votedLabour so that there was a better chance of defeating the Tories. But,of course, there was also a lot who voted Tory because they didn'tbelieve Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto.

Post by Bod'The second referendum and anti-Brexit politics of the Lib Dems failedat the recent election. They were rejected by the British people and heneeds to accept that.'

There was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Post by Bodhttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-4766436/Vince-Cable-says-supporters-leaving-EU-Brexit-jihadis.html

His outburst was immediately condemned ? with critics saying SirVince was guilty of 'contempt for ordinary voters'.Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: 'Vince gets more like Victor Meldrew everyday. He is a Brexit denier and he doesn't accept the will of theBritish people which was expressed again at the last general electionwhich was why the Lib Dems only got 12 seats.'

Knowing that voting Liberal could/would be a wasted vote, many votedLabour so that there was a better chance of defeating the Tories. But,of course, there was also a lot who voted Tory because they didn'tbelieve Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto.

'The second referendum and anti-Brexit politics of the Lib Dems failedat the recent election. They were rejected by the British people and heneeds to accept that.'

There was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?

And it does not bother you that a UK politician is comparing people withperfectly reasonable opinions about the EU with Islamic terrorists? Youknow the ones, they blow up children and behead people in the streets.

His outburst was immediately condemned ? with critics saying SirVince was guilty of 'contempt for ordinary voters'.Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: 'Vince gets more like Victor Meldrew everyday. He is a Brexit denier and he doesn't accept the will of theBritish people which was expressed again at the last general electionwhich was why the Lib Dems only got 12 seats.'

Knowing that voting Liberal could/would be a wasted vote, many votedLabour so that there was a better chance of defeating the Tories. But,of course, there was also a lot who voted Tory because they didn'tbelieve Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto.

'The second referendum and anti-Brexit politics of the Lib Dems failedat the recent election. They were rejected by the British people and heneeds to accept that.'

There was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?The *honest* truth please.

If there had been a growing amount of evidence that remaining was likelyto be a total disaster for the UK, and that lots of people had champedtheir minds? If that was the case, I'd be clamouring for a secondreferendum. [Wouldn't you?]

And it does not bother you that a UK politician is comparing people withperfectly reasonable opinions about the EU with Islamic terrorists? Youknow the ones, they blow up children and behead people in the streets.

You obviously don't recognise figurative language, do you. If youdescribed someone as being 'just a little Hitler', would you really meanthat he was both little, and a clone of Hitler? Would a less evocative'saboteur' be more acceptable?

Post by Ian JacksonThere was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?The *honest* truth please.

If there had been a growing amount of evidence that remaining was likelyto be a total disaster for the UK, and that lots of people had champedtheir minds? If that was the case, I'd be clamouring for a secondreferendum. [Wouldn't you?]

And if there was no such evidence, bearing in mind opinion is notevidence - what then? How would you feel if remain had won by a fewpercent and within 2 years another referendum was held?

Post by Bodhttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-4766436/Vince-Cable-says-supporters-leaving-EU-Brexit-jihadis.html

And it does not bother you that a UK politician is comparing people withperfectly reasonable opinions about the EU with Islamic terrorists? Youknow the ones, they blow up children and behead people in the streets.

You obviously don't recognise figurative language, do you. If youdescribed someone as being 'just a little Hitler', would you really meanthat he was both little, and a clone of Hitler? Would a less evocative'saboteur' be more acceptable?

Post by Ian JacksonThere was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?The *honest* truth please.

If there had been a growing amount of evidence that remaining was likelyto be a total disaster for the UK, and that lots of people had champedtheir minds? If that was the case, I'd be clamouring for a secondreferendum. [Wouldn't you?]

And if there was no such evidence, bearing in mind opinion is notevidence - what then?

If there was no growing amount of evidence that remaining in the EU waslikely to be detrimental for the UK, why would I clamour for a secondreferendum?

If the vote had been to remain, I guess that the status quo would havecontinued. There would be none of the upheaval and that is occurring atthe moment.

However, as I have said before, a close vote would have given thegovernment a good opportunity to apply a lever to the EU. They couldhave said "Look guys, we voted to stay - but it WAS a close-run thing,and it was despite most of our MPs backing remaining. As there isobviously a lot of popular support to leave, it's almost certain that ifour politicians had advocated leaving, there would have been aconsiderable majority to do so. With this in mind, don't you think it'stime that the EU addressed some of our concerns, with a view to makingsome changes? If these are not attended to, we could well be obliged tohold another referendum in a couple of years time - and this time wewill be recommending that we leave. And don't forget that we are notthe only country that is expressing dissatisfaction about some aspectsof the EU. We might not be the only ones that want out."

Unfortunately - and probably because of the £350M - the vote wentslightly the other way. As a result, a slim majority of voters hascommitted the UK to leaving the EU - apparently without any possibilityof them (plus those who should have voted, but didn't) being able toconsider if the agreement reached is satisfactory.

Of course, there are those who might say that there is no point in this,as it's inevitable that initially we'll have take things on trust, andsee how they pan out in the following years. Only then will we be ableto make a valued judgement as to whether Brexit has turned out to be agood idea. Unfortunately, by then, the UK could have descended into seepshit - and that's a risk that most remainers probably don't want us totake.

Post by Ian Jacksonwhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?The *honest* truth please.

If there had been a growing amount of evidence that remaining was likelyto be a total disaster for the UK, and that lots of people had champedtheir minds? If that was the case, I'd be clamouring for a secondreferendum. [Wouldn't you?]

And if there was no such evidence, bearing in mind opinion is notevidence - what then?

If there was no growing amount of evidence that remaining in the EU waslikely to be detrimental for the UK, why would I clamour for a secondreferendum?

If the vote had been to remain, I guess that the status quo would havecontinued. There would be none of the upheaval and that is occurring atthe moment.However, as I have said before, a close vote would have given thegovernment a good opportunity to apply a lever to the EU. They couldhave said "Look guys, we voted to stay - but it WAS a close-run thing,and it was despite most of our MPs backing remaining. As there isobviously a lot of popular support to leave, it's almost certain that ifour politicians had advocated leaving, there would have been aconsiderable majority to do so. With this in mind, don't you think it'stime that the EU addressed some of our concerns, with a view to makingsome changes? If these are not attended to, we could well be obliged tohold another referendum in a couple of years time - and this time wewill be recommending that we leave. And don't forget that we are notthe only country that is expressing dissatisfaction about some aspectsof the EU. We might not be the only ones that want out."

What a bizarre notion. The EU would then have done nothing. 'You votedremain, on the current terms, that is what you will do. It's what youvoted for.'

There are no levers in that. In fact, it's complete disarmament.

The EU wasn't much swayed by Cameron's shuttle diplomacy before thereferendum where he applied the lever that we might leave, was it? Thetruth is, it won't do anything unless forced. Its members still regardtheir organisation as perfect and above reproach, despite all theevidence to the contrary, and despite losing one of its biggest members.

If the vote had been to remain, I guess that the status quo would havecontinued. There would be none of the upheaval and that is occurring atthe moment.However, as I have said before, a close vote would have given thegovernment a good opportunity to apply a lever to the EU. They couldhave said "Look guys, we voted to stay - but it WAS a close-run thing,and it was despite most of our MPs backing remaining. As there isobviously a lot of popular support to leave, it's almost certain that ifour politicians had advocated leaving, there would have been aconsiderable majority to do so. With this in mind, don't you think it'stime that the EU addressed some of our concerns, with a view to makingsome changes? If these are not attended to, we could well be obliged tohold another referendum in a couple of years time - and this time wewill be recommending that we leave. And don't forget that we are notthe only country that is expressing dissatisfaction about some aspectsof the EU. We might not be the only ones that want out."

What a bizarre notion. The EU would then have done nothing. 'You votedremain, on the current terms, that is what you will do. It's what youvoted for.'There are no levers in that. In fact, it's complete disarmament.

I completely agree - and that is the reason why some eurosceptics wereagainst the referendum. They thought remain would win and then the UKwould be forever screwed over in its membership of the EU.

Post by Ian JacksonThere was no 'second referendum'. The second referendum will besomething which will really allow the Will Of The People to prevail - iewhen The People can say yea or nay to the terms of Brexit (and is thevery thing that the Brexiteers don't want us to be allowed to have).

Tell the honest truth - how would you have felt about a second EUreferendum within 2 years of the last if remain had won?The *honest* truth please.

If there had been a growing amount of evidence that remaining was likelyto be a total disaster for the UK, and that lots of people had champedtheir minds? If that was the case, I'd be clamouring for a secondreferendum. [Wouldn't you?]

And if there was no such evidence, bearing in mind opinion is notevidence - what then?

If there was no growing amount of evidence that remaining in the EU waslikely to be detrimental for the UK, why would I clamour for a secondreferendum?

If the vote had been to remain, I guess that the status quo would havecontinued. There would be none of the upheaval and that is occurring atthe moment.However, as I have said before, a close vote would have given thegovernment a good opportunity to apply a lever to the EU.

You are wrong, the EU would have laughed at us because they would now bein full knowledge that they could continue full steam ahead with closerintegration and that we would not leave.

Post by Ian JacksonThey couldhave said "Look guys, we voted to stay - but it WAS a close-run thing,

Yep - you can hear those belly laughs.

Post by Ian Jacksonand it was despite most of our MPs backing remaining. As there isobviously a lot of popular support to leave, it's almost certain that ifour politicians had advocated leaving, there would have been aconsiderable majority to do so. With this in mind, don't you think it'stime that the EU addressed some of our concerns, with a view to makingsome changes?

The belly laughs are getting louder.

Post by Ian JacksonIf these are not attended to, we could well be obliged tohold another referendum in a couple of years time - and this time wewill be recommending that we leave. And don't forget that we are notthe only country that is expressing dissatisfaction about some aspectsof the EU. We might not be the only ones that want out."

The EU could now be on the floor, howling with laugher.

Post by Ian JacksonUnfortunately - and probably because of the £350M - the vote wentslightly the other way.

Even though that was the gross sum as explained at the time (actualbeing £252 million in 2016), it was right that the people of the UK hada measure of how much money the UK sends to the EU every week.

Or are you advocating that this figure should have been hidden from theUK public, given you are so sure it contributed to referendum result?

Post by Ian JacksonAs a result, a slim majority of voters hascommitted the UK to leaving the EU - apparently without any possibilityof them (plus those who should have voted, but didn't) being able toconsider if the agreement reached is satisfactory.

As discussed previously, the trade agreement we end up with will beforever subject to change by future administrations, here and abroad, soI am unclear what a vote on that would achieve. Unless of course itbecomes UK policy to have referendums on all our trade agreements withforeign powers.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on this particular point.

Post by Ian JacksonOf course, there are those who might say that there is no point in this,as it's inevitable that initially we'll have take things on trust, andsee how they pan out in the following years.

How would this referendum of yours work? Would there be a tick box foreach agreed item or would it be a single question covering the entireagreement?

Would we be further asked if we wanted to stay in the EU or if we stillwanted to leave but also wanted further negotiations (more tick boxes onwhat items we wished to be re-negotiated) or if we were happy to go withWTO rules?

And while all this was going on, how would this hand together with A50being served and our leave date of March 2019?

It is easy to say "second referendum" but what in fact would it mean inpractical terms?

Post by Ian JacksonOnly then will we be ableto make a valued judgement as to whether Brexit has turned out to be agood idea.

You see this is were you still do not get it. It is not about the nuanceof whether or not UK citizens who live in the EU will be able tocontinue to travel freely across countries or whether EU citizens in theUK will continue to have the protection of the EU court, for example.

The reasons for staying or leaving, for most people, are much morefundamental - as they clearly are for you. And deals can change at anypoint in the future.

Leave the EU or stay in - that is the only question that can be asked,and it has been.

Post by Ian JacksonUnfortunately, by then, the UK could have descended into seepshit - and that's a risk that most remainers probably don't want us totake.

The other side of the coin is that the EU is taking the UK to a placemost UK citizens, who expressed a preference, do not want to go.